See, this is really the whole problem with Religion. Forget rationality vs belief. Forget miracles vs science. Forget evolution vs creationism. The problem with religion is this: it gives self righteous assholes an excuse to feel important, and to inflict their nonsense on the rest of us.

Alicious:I live in a state that is trying to pass legislation to mandate that doctors lie to their patients

If such a law were passed, could a doctor get away with saying "The state government requires me to tell you the following, even though it is a lie." [recites state mandated statement] "The previous statement was a lie, don't believe it."?

If the requirement to have a gun locked up violates the constitutional right to have a gun as it makes it not immediately available for self defense, how does the requirement to have an invasive ultrasound not violate the right to privacy that Roe v Wade is based on?

Two rights under the constitution, but adding requirements to one is unconstitutional but adding requirements to another seems to be fine...

Mikey1969:pciszek: Mikey1969: Here in Utah, you have people run for the Legislature and the state liquor board on a teetotaler platform, never having consumed a drop of alcohol in their lives

Here in Colorado, people get elected to the public transportation board of directors with the stated goal of eliminating public transportation. Ditto for public education occasionally.

Well, I guess I can sleep tonight knowing that I'm not alone in being in a state where assholes decide they want to play Napoleon and fark up everybody's life, simply because they can.

To be fair, alcohol affects teetotalers as well as drinkers. I don't drink, but I'm still at risk from drunk drivers, still have to deal with the bar owners across the street, etc. Lots of alcohol issues go beyond people consuming it in their own homes -- bars affect everyone.

The entire process of figuring out what medical procedure should be done for a woman and her baby should be between her and her doctor. I don't care if transvaginal ultrasounds are normal procedure or not because her options shouldn't be legislated anyway. Of course, this bill is more about forcing a woman to choose between her own choice and the pain of a forced procedure anyway. If you can't force them to do what you want I guess you try to torture them into it.

killershark:I don't understand this logic at all. OK, yes, two transvaginal ultrasounds is ridiculous but I'm pretty sure a transvaginal ultrasound is pretty commom to verify a pregnancy in the first trimester. So why do these Republicans keep acting like it's some gotcha to prevent abortions when most pregnant women -- even those who planned their pregnancies -- all have to undergo the same procedure? It's invasive, yes, but slathering some jelly on a woman's belly to see a six-week fetus is something that doesn't happen in real life.

If it makes abortion more expensive and unpleasant, women will have fewer abortions.

This bill also makes running an abortion clinic prohibitively expensive, even if all the abortions it performs consist of handing out pills.

Lenny_da_Hog:Mikey1969: pciszek: Mikey1969: Here in Utah, you have people run for the Legislature and the state liquor board on a teetotaler platform, never having consumed a drop of alcohol in their lives

Here in Colorado, people get elected to the public transportation board of directors with the stated goal of eliminating public transportation. Ditto for public education occasionally.

Well, I guess I can sleep tonight knowing that I'm not alone in being in a state where assholes decide they want to play Napoleon and fark up everybody's life, simply because they can.

To be fair, alcohol affects teetotalers as well as drinkers. I don't drink, but I'm still at risk from drunk drivers, still have to deal with the bar owners across the street, etc. Lots of alcohol issues go beyond people consuming it in their own homes -- bars affect everyone.

Too bad their bullshiat has nothing to do with drunk drivers, bars or bar owners. When people make restaurants with alcohol service add $50,000 to their build cost to add an extra room so that the bartender can mix drinks out of sight, because kids might see a drink being mixed and then grow up to be an alcoholic, that's not "public safety", it's bullshiat, and the restaurants open their new locations out of state.

When liquor control officers come into a crowded bar as a party of 4,order drinks, and then send 2 to the bathroom as the waitress is coming back with the drinks, just to cite the bar with over-serving, suspending the bar's license for 30-90 days, putting people out of work, that's not "public service", it's harassment.

When you can't get a drink at a restaurant while waiting for your table, can't in fact order a drink while looking at your menu until food has been ordered, but have no such requirement to eat food with your drinks at a bar, that's not "public service", it's a nuisance law designed to penalize drinkers for being drinkers.

When all alcohol is sold in the monopoly of state run liquor stores and subject to an 85% markup, that's not "public service", it's hypocrisy by the people who claim that alcohol is "evil", but want to make as much money off of it as possible, all while earmarking it for education, but leaving in loopholes that allow them to constantly funnel off the money into pet projects, actually leaving the state near(or at) the bottom for per-student funding.

If they were regulations designed to actually protect the public, it would be one thing, but they are 100% designed to penalize drinkers while the same people make this the #1 state for prescription drug abuse(The Mormons didn't know about 'scripts when Joseph Smith "translated the Word of God".

So there's that. This state is so farked up that MADD has to keep reminding the Utah chapter(And everyone else) that they aren't a prohibitionist organization, and that Utah MADD is twisting their mission statement for their own means.

Lorelle:Every Republican who wants to subject women to this bullshiat should be forced to have a huge white dildo rammed up their asses not once, but twice. For medical purposes, natch.

Not the same thing. Remember, these dirty sluts have already had something stuffed up their vaginas in the first place, or they wouldn't be pregnant, didn't you read that totally rational explanation in TFA? The woman makes total sense, amirite?

Alicious:killershark: gadian: killershark: don't understand this logic at all. OK, yes, two transvaginal ultrasounds is ridiculous but I'm pretty sure a transvaginal ultrasound is pretty commom to verify a pregnancy in the first trimester. So why do these Republicans keep acting like it's some gotcha to prevent abortions when most pregnant women -- even those who planned their pregnancies -- all have to undergo the same procedure? It's invasive, yes, but slathering some jelly on a woman's belly to see a six-week fetus is something that doesn't happen in real life.

That's the thing. Normally women don't start pre-natal treatment and / or get an ultrasound until 12 weeks when you can use the jelly. Most women will never have to get a transvaginal.

What? No. Normally women begin prenatal treatment at six to eight weeks and any average obgyn is going to verify a pregnancy at that point with a transvaginal ultrasound after a positive test result from a urine sample. And in some cases, you will have more than one transvaginal ultrasound to make sure there is a heartbeat and the fetus is developing properly. If you're getting an abortion, a doctor will still need to verify there is a fetus with a transvaginal ultrasound so as not to perform an unnecessary procedure.

No, an average OB/GYN is going to first give you a urine pregnancy test and a pelvic exam. If those cannot confirm a pregnancy or if there is some question about how far along the pregnancy is, then you get a blood test and then possibly a transvaginal, particularly if an ectopic pregnancy is suspected.

I don't know why people seem to think a transvaginal is a normal and standard part of prenatal care. It is not and an OB/GYN who thinks you need one for anything else other than a valid medical reason is just trying to pad their pocketbooks.

But we're not talking about pre-natal care; we're talking about pre-abortion care. 88-92% of all abortions happen during the first twelve weeks; most abortions will require a transvaginal ultrasound.

BarkingUnicorn:But we're not talking about pre-natal care; we're talking about pre-abortion care. 88-92% of all abortions happen during the first twelve weeks; most abortions will require a transvaginal ultrasound.

The original assertation was that most women who get pregnant get the transvag and we were just saying that wasn't true. Most women never get the transvaginal ultrasound. However, it is more or less standard practice for abortions very, very early in the first trimester to determine the location and age of the fetus. Below 9 weeks a woman can take the pills which are cheaper and more private than the standard procedure so doctors really want to do it that way if they can.

BarkingUnicorn:But we're not talking about pre-natal care; we're talking about pre-abortion care. 88-92% of all abortions happen during the first twelve weeks; most abortions will require a transvaginal ultrasound.

It's completely useless the entire first month. The embryo isn't even visible on a transvaginal ultrasound until the fifth or sixth week, which is just a week or so before it's visible on an abdominal ultrasound. For most abortions there's no absolutely no medical necessity.

gadian:What's wrong with leaving this as a discussion between the practitioner and the patient? Really? Can't we just let those two sort it out?

"Hey ma'am, the most accurate method is this trans-vaginal thingy that's very painful, but there are other methods.""Hmm...Let's talk about the other methods first."

See how easy and non-legislatey the whole thing can be?

Transvaginal ultrasounds aren't a method of abortion. The logic of proponents is literally "if these women want to murder their babies so much, they should have to look them in the eye first." Their idea of a compromise on this is not requiring the patient to watch it being performed, just that they have to undergo the procedure and be encouraged to look (what was their original idea? An "A Clockwork Orange" apparatus?) while it's being done.

The whole idea is based on this view that women who wish to terminate a pregnancy are not giving the matter significant consideration and that if they were to be shown that the fetus is developing into a baby they will refuse an abortion. I've never known anyone who considered an abortion who didn't treat it seriously and consider the ramifications before they went through with it: it's a solution searching for a problem. Instead it just causes physical discomfort, time burdens, and increased costs for procedures that are legal in this country.

I had to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound to examine an ovarian cyst. It wasn't "painful" per se, but it was certainly very uncomfortable, mostly due to a lot of pressure in a sensitive area. If something like that was forced on a rape victim, I'd say it would be the equivalent of, "Hey, you just got kicked in the nads, so we're going to put your balls in a vice for 10 minutes to make sure nothing's broken."

Fast Moon:I had to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound to examine an ovarian cyst. It wasn't "painful" per se, but it was certainly very uncomfortable, mostly due to a lot of pressure in a sensitive area. If something like that was forced on a rape victim, I'd say it would be the equivalent of, "Hey, you just got kicked in the nads, so we're going to put your balls in a vice for 10 minutes to make sure nothing's broken."

But beyond that, if the procedure is medically necessary... it's medically necessary.

Now, sadly for Republicans, this procedure isn't necessary. It's punitive. I find it more than a little ironic that for all their "The government will come between you and your doctor!!!!" nonsense during the healthcare debacle that it's exactly what they're looking to do with legislation like this. And it's not even for the good of the patient, it's to punish the woman in question for daring to have premarital sex without effective contraception or looking too fine for a rapist to resist.

Fast Moon:I had to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound to examine an ovarian cyst. It wasn't "painful" per se, but it was certainly very uncomfortable, mostly due to a lot of pressure in a sensitive area. If something like that was forced on a rape victim, I'd say it would be the equivalent of, "Hey, you just got kicked in the nads, so we're going to put your balls in a vice for 10 minutes to make sure nothing's broken."

Or more simply put, it is an unnecessary medical procedure designed to make the person reconsider the choice to have an abortion. So this is like pulling out one of your teeth to show you how painful surgery is before you have that appendectomy.

monoski:Fast Moon: I had to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound to examine an ovarian cyst. It wasn't "painful" per se, but it was certainly very uncomfortable, mostly due to a lot of pressure in a sensitive area. If something like that was forced on a rape victim, I'd say it would be the equivalent of, "Hey, you just got kicked in the nads, so we're going to put your balls in a vice for 10 minutes to make sure nothing's broken."

Or more simply put, it is an unnecessary medical procedure designed to make the person reconsider the choice to have an abortion. So this is like pulling out one of your teeth to show you how painful surgery is before you have that appendectomy.

Here's the thing, history has shown us that women are willing to take extreme and life-threatening measures to terminate unwanted pregnancies. As humiliating as a forced transvaginal ultrasound may be, it's not going to deter women from seeking an abortion. It's only purpose is slut-shaming.

killershark:I don't understand this logic at all. OK, yes, two transvaginal ultrasounds is ridiculous but I'm pretty sure a transvaginal ultrasound is pretty commom to verify a pregnancy in the first trimester. So why do these Republicans keep acting like it's some gotcha to prevent abortions when most pregnant women -- even those who planned their pregnancies -- all have to undergo the same procedure? It's invasive, yes, but slathering some jelly on a woman's belly to see a six-week fetus is something that doesn't happen in real life.

Transvaginal ultrasound is not common to verify a pregnancy. At about eight weeks, you go to your OB and you pee in a cup. They test your urine for pregnancy hormones. Then, unless you have a history of miscarriage or were on fertility treatments, they simply send you home until the end of your first trimester, which is when pre-natal care begins. The idea of a trans-vaginal ultrasound during the first trimester, when your entire body is aching as it adjusts to new hormones? Horrifying. /36 weeks pregnant//soo ready for it to be over///fark these politicians

NobleHam:"I got pregnant vaginally," she said. "Something else could come in my vagina for a medical test that wouldn't be that intrusive to me. So I find that argument a little ridiculous."

Just... Jesus. Once you've been penetrated once, any other penetrations don't matter? Let's all just pile on in there. One penis has been in there, so there is now no number of additional penises which will be considered intrusive.

As long as it's for a medical procedure anyway. The question is whether she considers insemination to be a medical procedure.